Jose Ramiro Urias v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jose Ramiro Urias v. State

DecidedJanuary 26, 2006

Docket14-06-00002-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Jose Ramiro Urias v. State (Jose Ramiro Urias v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jose Ramiro Urias v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 26, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 26, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00002-CR

JOSE RAMIRO URIAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 899,995

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a plea of guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child, appellant was placed on eight years of deferred adjudication community supervision and assessed a fine of $800. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate guilt. On November 18, 2005, appellant signed a stipulation of evidence, in which he agreed to waive any right of appeal he might have. On November 18, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant to eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $800. No timely motion for new trial was filed. Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed until December 27, 2005.

A defendant=s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.

Additionally, appellant affirmatively waived the right of appeal in the stipulation of evidence, signed on November 18, 2005.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 26, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Frost, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 26, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 26, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00002-CR

JOSE RAMIRO URIAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 899,995

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a plea of guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child, appellant was placed on eight years of deferred adjudication community supervision and assessed a fine of $800. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate guilt. On November 18, 2005, appellant signed a stipulation of evidence, in which he agreed to waive any right of appeal he might have. On November 18, 2005, the trial court sentenced appellant to eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine of $800. No timely motion for new trial was filed. Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed until December 27, 2005.

A defendant=s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id.

Additionally, appellant affirmatively waived the right of appeal in the stipulation of evidence, signed on November 18, 2005.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 26, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Frost, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jose Ramiro Urias v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-ramiro-urias-v-state-texapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack